Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Physical and Mental Examination, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/12/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ESTRADA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. TERESA MACIS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION [ECF No. 47] Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for court ordered physical and mental examination. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court, on a motion for good cause, to 22 order a mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner of a party whose mental 23 condition is “in controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a); Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 24 (1964). The requirements “are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings—nor by mere 25 relevance of the case—but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to 26 which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for 27 ordering each particular examination.” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118. 28 1 Here, Plaintiff seeks an order for his own examination. However, Rule 35 allows a movant to 1 2 request examination of an opposing party whose mental or physical condition is in controversy, not for 3 a party to request his own examination to support his claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an 4 examination to assisting in presenting his claims shall be denied. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 8 July 12, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?